Holy cow. I wonder if there are any more details on this and how accurate it is. I would think it is pretty much the same thing as bad-mouthing a former employee when a potential employer calls for reference.

No matter what, if this is true, it gives a great deal of power to people with the ability to enter names into that system. And it sounds to crazy to be real....but it wouldn't surprise me.

I've been blackballed from working for minimum wage at Target and Family Dollar. Where can I work now? I can only hope Dollar Palace is still hiring. You don't have to get that dressed up there either.

Holy cow. I wonder if there are any more details on this and how accurate it is. I would think it is pretty much the same thing as bad-mouthing a former employee when a potential employer calls for reference.

Well, it's a little different when the former employee was trying to steal from you. I've seen a guy who used to work for my company fired for embezzling money, then get another job AT A BANK* right afterwards because at that point he wasn't convicted yet, and thus didn't show up in any criminal databases.

No matter what, if this is true, it gives a great deal of power to people with the ability to enter names into that system. And it sounds to crazy to be real....but it wouldn't surprise me.

This is true -- whoever's running these data-sharing services need to audit their data providers for non-admissions that they try to pass off as confessions.

*Then again seeing how some of those banks were run (this was in the mid-00's), maybe that "experience" would have been a bonus.

I can see how Target could prevent you from working at any other Target. But Target blacklisting you from working at WalMart? I find that improbable.

csbSeveral years ago, my company was bought out. Turns out that several of my co-workers had worked for other divisions of the new parent corporation previously and had no-rehires on their employee files. Special arrangements were made so they didn't get fired for no cause at this job.

BizarreMan:I can see how Target could prevent you from working at any other Target. But Target blacklisting you from working at WalMart? I find that improbable.

Target can't stop WalMart from hiring them, but likely doesn't have to: If Walmart queries the database and find out that an applicant was fired for suspected theft they are probably likely to pass that applicant over. It's basically de facto blacklisting even though there is no forma agreement.

While this seems shady, I wonder how many of these cases would have been found out if the HR people looked up references? I assume they do this for "efficiency" and to avoid having the HR people on both sides have a conversation that may come up in a lawsuit later.

Philip Francis Queeg:Debeo Summa Credo: Well, any prospective new employer would be aware of the CEOs "crooked actions nearly bankrupting the company before running off with $50m" before making the decision to hire, right?

Well to be sure, they should be black listed on a database just like the employees who may have "stolen" a ball point pen.

Why do you need a database? Any new employer would know about a potential CEOs former employment history, and make their hiring decisions, which that have every right to do, in full consideration of that history.

Likewise, this list informs potential employers about previous thefts, giving them better information to make their own hiring decisions, which again is their right.

But hey, knock yourself out. Compile a database of all CEOs who were crooked and send it to the human resources department of every public company. Maybe your intrepid efforts will alert a company to info they didn't already have.

Just another way that these big box chains screw and demean employees. Having worked at a few places like this in my day, they really do a damn good job.

Csb

Knew a really good guy who was promoted into management. He was by far the best manager there at the store I worked at. Stand up guy, real straight shooter and did his job well. Too well, as it turned out. They accused him of stealing some kid's toys off the loading dock and, since he had no way to prove his innocence and since we lived in an At-will state, he was canned. Not like he was making his future there, but it was a good cushion while he prepped for a better career. He ended up working on road construction crews. They also fired every other employee with more than four or five years of experience within a year of my quitting on trumped up theft charges. Because they made too much money. My favorite was a co-worker who they fired because he used a coupon to get a half off 20oz of pop. They said the coupon was for customers only. fark retail forever and ever and ever.

By the same token, you'll never know why you weren't hired, so you have no evidence to sue.

The entire concept of the database is a stupid terrible idea made by lazy people. If you want to check someone's past employers before hiring, do so. You need to actually devote some time and effort to it though. Simply running someone's name through a database with zero controls or credibility is stupid, lazy and likely inaccurate. But hey, HR has never been known for anything else.

Debeo Summa Credo:Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Well, any prospective new employer would be aware of the CEOs "crooked actions nearly bankrupting the company before running off with $50m" before making the decision to hire, right?

Well to be sure, they should be black listed on a database just like the employees who may have "stolen" a ball point pen.

Why do you need a database? Any new employer would know about a potential CEOs former employment history, and make their hiring decisions, which that have every right to do, in full consideration of that history.

Likewise, this list informs potential employers about previous thefts, giving them better information to make their own hiring decisions, which again is their right.

But hey, knock yourself out. Compile a database of all CEOs who were crooked and send it to the human resources department of every public company. Maybe your intrepid efforts will alert a company to info they didn't already have.

No this database informs employers about unproven, undocumented, anonymous allegations of thefts. I'm sure you would support a database blacklisting CEOs based on whisper campaigns of unproven, undocumented, anonymous allegations of misdeeds, right? You are servile enough that you would probably support undocumented, unproven, anonymous allegations against YOU being entered into a black list.

Philip Francis Queeg:Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Well, any prospective new employer would be aware of the CEOs "crooked actions nearly bankrupting the company before running off with $50m" before making the decision to hire, right?

Well to be sure, they should be black listed on a database just like the employees who may have "stolen" a ball point pen.

Why do you need a database? Any new employer would know about a potential CEOs former employment history, and make their hiring decisions, which that have every right to do, in full consideration of that history.

Likewise, this list informs potential employers about previous thefts, giving them better information to make their own hiring decisions, which again is their right.

But hey, knock yourself out. Compile a database of all CEOs who were crooked and send it to the human resources department of every public company. Maybe your intrepid efforts will alert a company to info they didn't already have.

No this database informs employers about unproven, undocumented, anonymous allegations of thefts. I'm sure you would support a database blacklisting CEOs based on whisper campaigns of unproven, undocumented, anonymous allegations of misdeeds, right? You are servile enough that you would probably support undocumented, unproven, anonymous allegations against YOU being entered into a black list.

Keep exaggerating. It makes your points even less relevant.

Go create your database, based on whatever criteria you want. See who pays attention to it.

I have a sneaking suspicion this is taking place in more than just the retail field. I'm sure there is some form of "dark internet" where schools, trade employers, STEM employers, shippers, airlines, and manufacturers pass around blacklists of people to avoid for whatever reason. Reasons may include "I found out this guy got into a scuffle in a bar in college" or "She's a total biatch for not sleeping with me, so I'm going to tell everyone she's a thief."

syberpud:BizarreMan: I can see how Target could prevent you from working at any other Target. But Target blacklisting you from working at WalMart? I find that improbable.

Target can't stop WalMart from hiring them, but likely doesn't have to: If Walmart queries the database and find out that an applicant was fired for suspected theft they are probably likely to pass that applicant over. It's basically de facto blacklisting even though there is no forma agreement.

While this seems shady, I wonder how many of these cases would have been found out if the HR people looked up references? I assume they do this for "efficiency" and to avoid having the HR people on both sides have a conversation that may come up in a lawsuit later.

Why would any company want to share this info with a general database? Wouldn't it give Target a competitive advantage if Walmart had to raise their prices to compensate for stolen merchandise?

cefm:It's not a criminal conviction, so there is no standard of proof.

By the same token, you'll never know why you weren't hired, so you have no evidence to sue.

The entire concept of the database is a stupid terrible idea made by lazy people. If you want to check someone's past employers before hiring, do so. You need to actually devote some time and effort to it though. Simply running someone's name through a database with zero controls or credibility is stupid, lazy and likely inaccurate. But hey, HR has never been known for anything else.

Why should they put effort into it when they have 100 other applicants whose names aren't on the list? If we want workers to be in any position to negotiate in this country, we need to make labor a scarce resource. That means restructuring our tax code and immigration policies to lower our population.

Tommy Moo:cefm: It's not a criminal conviction, so there is no standard of proof.

By the same token, you'll never know why you weren't hired, so you have no evidence to sue.

The entire concept of the database is a stupid terrible idea made by lazy people. If you want to check someone's past employers before hiring, do so. You need to actually devote some time and effort to it though. Simply running someone's name through a database with zero controls or credibility is stupid, lazy and likely inaccurate. But hey, HR has never been known for anything else.

Why should they put effort into it when they have 100 other applicants whose names aren't on the list? If we want workers to be in any position to negotiate in this country, we need to make labor a scarce resource. That means restructuring our tax code and immigration policies to lower our population.

How does one restructure the tax code to lower out population? Raise taxes on the poor to the point they starve to death?

MugzyBrown:Tommy Moo: Problem is, for obvious reasons, there is certainly no way to find out if you are on the list, other than possibly sleeping with someone who knows.

When you file your lawsuit you'll findout.

So your plan is:

1) Not get offered a job you apply for2) Spend tens of thousands of dollars hiring lawyers to sue3) Gain access to "the list" in the discovery phase of the trial of the century4) Hope your name is on it

You don't get "discovery" in small claims court, and an average retail worker doesn't have the wherewithal to sue for discovery against Walmart, and even if they did, these lists are secret and there is no way to prove that they exist without a mole in the corporation.

Philip Francis Queeg:How does one restructure the tax code to lower out population? Raise taxes on the poor to the point they starve to death?

Stop offering people tax incentives to have more children would be a good place to start. Stop using taxes to subsidize virtually the entire cost of raising kids. Make it more expensive to have children, and people will have fewer of them. For the poor, we could possibly look into giving a tax credit to any family that has two or fewer children. I don't care if it smacks of eugenics. High unemployment and worker disempowerment is a greater problem. Also: global warming, pollution, resource consumption, water scarcity, destruction of habitat of endangered species, and a million other problems are caused by too many humans. Yes, taking steps to lower the birth rate would fall disproportionately on the poor, but only because they have more children. Bringing the number of children they have in line with the wealthy wouldn't even be "eugenics," it would simply balance things out.

The article doesn't exactly give those "detail" things, but are they saying there are databases shared between differenct companies that contain suspected inappropriate behavior? If so, wouldn't this amount to libel?

1) Not get offered a job you apply for2) Spend tens of thousands of dollars hiring lawyers to sue3) Gain access to "the list" in the discovery phase of the trial of the century4) Hope your name is on it

You don't get "discovery" in small claims court, and an average retail worker doesn't have the wherewithal to sue for discovery against Walmart, and even if they did, these lists are secret and there is no way to prove that they exist without a mole in the corporation.

Failure to hire lawsuits happen all of the time. If I had on my resume 2 years of working in retail and I'm applying for a retail position and am turned down, if I feel I was screwed I just hire an attorney on a contigency basis.

Debeo Summa Credo:Likewise, this list informs potential employers about previous thefts, giving them better information to make their own hiring decisions, which again is their right.

And you can be entered on the list for mere suspicion. You give someone, who may have nothing but a work grudge against your for some reason, the power to significantly impact your life. This is the reason companies are not supposed to give much beyond "yeah, they worked here" to questioning HR departments (in fact, this is policy where I work). How "bad" a person may have been at their last job is subjective and situational.

CSB - an employee at my wife's job had her job dissolved during a restructuring and was laid off (she was given the choice actually - new job within the new structure or take a severance). While searching for another job, she went through several interviews and each business was interested in hiring her but for some seemingly strange reason, they didn't make an offer. She started wondering what was wrong - she gave great interviews and they all expressed a sincere interest in hiring her and told her as much. At the third rejection the HR person was good enough to call her (outside of their policy) and told her that her previous job was giving her a very negative reference. It turns out the HR departments were calling and getting hold of someone who had some kind of petty conflict with her. Needless to say, she sued (they settled) and they canned the chick who was answering the phone when the HR departments called.

And the thing is, she could have successfully sued even if the negative references were justified.

I'm pretty sure there are other databases out there that could be questioned.We have one around here that list tenants for apartment complexes. It list their ability to pay, disturbances,criminal violations and other good stuff.

Philip Francis Queeg:Tommy Moo: Make it more expensive to have children, and more children will grow up suffering in crushing poverty.

FTFY

That might also happen if we do it haphazardly. But if you understand anything about economics, you know that many people would have fewer children, and it's worth it. Absolutely nothing is more important to the sustainability of our society and environment that lowering human population right now. It is the only problem of the 21st century, to which all other socioeconomic/sociopolitical problems can be trivially linked.

There are ways of carefully engineering solutions that limit the damage to poor children. I recommended one above, which you ignored: give credits to families that have two children or fewer. Families that have more than two children will still be in the same situation they are currently in.

Tommy Moo:Philip Francis Queeg: Tommy Moo: Make it more expensive to have children, and more children will grow up suffering in crushing poverty.

FTFY

That might also happen if we do it haphazardly. But if you understand anything about economics, you know that many people would have fewer children, and it's worth it. Absolutely nothing is more important to the sustainability of our society and environment that lowering human population right now. It is the only problem of the 21st century, to which all other socioeconomic/sociopolitical problems can be trivially linked.

There are ways of carefully engineering solutions that limit the damage to poor children. I recommended one above, which you ignored: give credits to families that have two children or fewer. Families that have more than two children will still be in the same situation they are currently in.

Poverty does not lead to people having fewer children. It never has, and it never will.

Unless "carefully engineered" means "dracionian restrictions" it simply will not have an effect. Even if it does mean "draconian restrictions" it will not have an effect.

You can imagine what would happen. Manna fires you because you don't show up for work a couple times. Now you try to go get a job somewhere else. No other Manna system is going to hire you. There had always been an implicit threat in the American economy -- "if you do not have a job, you cannot make any money and you will therefore become homeless." Manna simply took that threat and turned the screws. If you did not do what Manna told you to, it would fire you. Then you would not be able to get a job anywhere else. It gave Manna huge leverage.

Yeah why not. There's far more workers than jobs now, it was only a matter if time before this shiat started happening. Industry can afford to blacklist tons of people and not have to worry about a worker shortage increasing wages anymore.

MugzyBrown:Failure to hire lawsuits happen all of the time. If I had on my resume 2 years of working in retail and I'm applying for a retail position and am turned down, if I feel I was screwed I just hire an attorney on a contigency basis.

If you want to work as a cashier at Walmart, they send you to an online application. No resume. So you fill that out, and if you don't get called, then you're going to sue?

You think an attorney is going to take that case on contingency?

"Hi, I filled out an application at Walmart, and they haven't called me." Click.

Tommy Moo:Stop offering people tax incentives to have more children would be a good place to start

Yes, that is always the reason people have kids, tax incentives.

I knew a few girls in high school and college that were trying to get knocked up by their boyfriends. Not because they wanted to 'land' this guys, but because of all those tax incentives.I sure people people in the ghetto, who have little in the form of entertainment, are not using sex as a means to have fun, but for tax incentives.I've know guys that said they refuse to wear rubbers, not because they claim it feels better, but because they are thinking of all those tax incentives those kids will bring them.

But you are right in the end. So many people I know with multiple kids do it not to have brother and sisters for the other children, or because they like kids, or because their religion says to be fruitful, its because of the insane tax incentives. Why just other day at work a woman was lamenting of the fact that she didn't really want to go through another pregnancy and then raising an infant, but those phat tax incentives were just too awesome to pass up.

MithrandirBooga:Yeah why not. There's far more workers than jobs now, it was only a matter if time before this shiat started happening. Industry can afford to blacklist tons of people and not have to worry about a worker shortage increasing wages anymore.

Even a McDonalds franchise is requiring a degree for cashiers now. This is what you can get away with when there is an overabundant supply of labour now that machines have taken up a significant amount of work.

You're trolling, right? You honestly don't think that "machines have taken up a significant amount of work" is the problem, do you?

Philip Francis Queeg:Tommy Moo: Philip Francis Queeg: Tommy Moo: Make it more expensive to have children, and more children will grow up suffering in crushing poverty.

FTFY

That might also happen if we do it haphazardly. But if you understand anything about economics, you know that many people would have fewer children, and it's worth it. Absolutely nothing is more important to the sustainability of our society and environment that lowering human population right now. It is the only problem of the 21st century, to which all other socioeconomic/sociopolitical problems can be trivially linked.

There are ways of carefully engineering solutions that limit the damage to poor children. I recommended one above, which you ignored: give credits to families that have two children or fewer. Families that have more than two children will still be in the same situation they are currently in.

Poverty does not lead to people having fewer children. It never has, and it never will.

Unless "carefully engineered" means "dracionian restrictions" it simply will not have an effect. Even if it does mean "draconian restrictions" it will not have an effect.

Birthrates have fallen since the recession started. Look it up. People absolutely do choose to have fewer children if they perceive they cannot afford it.

wingnut396:Tommy Moo: Stop offering people tax incentives to have more children would be a good place to start

Yes, that is always the reason people have kids, tax incentives.

I knew a few girls in high school and college that were trying to get knocked up by their boyfriends. Not because they wanted to 'land' this guys, but because of all those tax incentives.I sure people people in the ghetto, who have little in the form of entertainment, are not using sex as a means to have fun, but for tax incentives.I've know guys that said they refuse to wear rubbers, not because they claim it feels better, but because they are thinking of all those tax incentives those kids will bring them.

But you are right in the end. So many people I know with multiple kids do it not to have brother and sisters for the other children, or because they like kids, or because their religion says to be fruitful, its because of the insane tax incentives. Why just other day at work a woman was lamenting of the fact that she didn't really want to go through another pregnancy and then raising an infant, but those phat tax incentives were just too awesome to pass up.

Some people have irresponsible, unplanned pregnancies. I'm not advocating for the extinction of the human race; I'm advocating for a marginally lower birth rate. If, out of all of the people who have children, some number of them rationally planned to have the child, and if, out of that group, some number would reconsider if the financial incentives were on the side of not having another one, then the number of children born would come down by some amount. You already know this is true. Stop being dense. You're bringing up points you don't even believe in order to be difficult.

Tommy Moo:Philip Francis Queeg: Tommy Moo: Philip Francis Queeg: Tommy Moo: Make it more expensive to have children, and more children will grow up suffering in crushing poverty.

FTFY

That might also happen if we do it haphazardly. But if you understand anything about economics, you know that many people would have fewer children, and it's worth it. Absolutely nothing is more important to the sustainability of our society and environment that lowering human population right now. It is the only problem of the 21st century, to which all other socioeconomic/sociopolitical problems can be trivially linked.

There are ways of carefully engineering solutions that limit the damage to poor children. I recommended one above, which you ignored: give credits to families that have two children or fewer. Families that have more than two children will still be in the same situation they are currently in.

Poverty does not lead to people having fewer children. It never has, and it never will.

Unless "carefully engineered" means "dracionian restrictions" it simply will not have an effect. Even if it does mean "draconian restrictions" it will not have an effect.

Birthrates have fallen since the recession started. Look it up. People absolutely do choose to have fewer children if they perceive they cannot afford it.

So would a search for a criminal record, with the important difference that a criminal conviction has a much higher chance of indicating an actual thief, instead of a petty manager looking to ruin someone.

How about this? If you are denied employment due to this database and the employer who entered you into it lacks proof that will convince a jury that the theft occurred, then that employer is liable for libel and defamation of character, with all damages trebled as this treads into antitrust territory. Those who make only truthful entries would have nothing to fear by this system.

Tommy Moo:Philip Francis Queeg: How does one restructure the tax code to lower out population? Raise taxes on the poor to the point they starve to death?

Stop offering people tax incentives to have more children would be a good place to start. Stop using taxes to subsidize virtually the entire cost of raising kids. Make it more expensive to have children, and people will have fewer of them. For the poor, we could possibly look into giving a tax credit to any family that has two or fewer children. I don't care if it smacks of eugenics. High unemployment and worker disempowerment is a greater problem. Also: global warming, pollution, resource consumption, water scarcity, destruction of habitat of endangered species, and a million other problems are caused by too many humans. Yes, taking steps to lower the birth rate would fall disproportionately on the poor, but only because they have more children. Bringing the number of children they have in line with the wealthy wouldn't even be "eugenics," it would simply balance things out.

Sorry, even if you took them to draconian extremes, these measures would not have nearly the effect you had hoped for. The strongest correlations for reducing population expansion are Education and Equality of the Sexes. Simply put, regions that properly educate their women and don't treat them like second class citizens tend towards sustainable population growth. Treat the disease, not the symptom.